This week we visited the sensational art gallery Compton Verney, a converted Georgian mansion situated in beautifully landscaped grounds, in pursuit of the answer to our question – Must art have meaning?

Our small group was comprised of a philosopher, an English student, a physicist and, at the head, an art historian. Boldly she led the way, leading us through the picturesque gardens and across a glistening river until eventually we reached the broad front of the house. With an eager kind of fascination she vanished within, leaving the remainder of us to tentatively cross the threshold one by one, all too aware of our lacking expertise in such a seemingly exclusive field.

A brief step and suddenly we were in a whole other world of exploding volcanoes, dancing demi-gods and bustling cities. Another step and we found ourselves below sneering kings and queens of old, shyly gazing up at the portraits of the people who shaped the world around them so dramatically. Then a shocking change as we encountered outsider art, where we saw artists expressing their thoughts and feelings in the most unconventional of ways. Finally, perhaps the most humble exhibit was that of folk art. Here artists advertised their wares and trades through paint, wood, stone and metal. Yet the question inevitably arose – What does this all mean?

After immersing oneself in such a menagerie of art it is impossible to deny that the artist is expressing something of themselves, often their most indescribable thoughts, through their medium. Whether it be a satirical comment about dentists or a vent of frustration about politics or just a longing for tranquillity, each artwork has its own message. This was epitomised for us in Salvator Rosa’s ‘The Baptist in the Wilderness’ and ‘The Baptism in the Jordan’, where the artist controversially de-centralises the objects of his painting and chooses instead to focus on the landscape behind. We are left pondering, does this reflect a desire to move away from Christ himself or is it in fact a rebellion against religiosity – choosing to point the onlooker to the rising sun, encapsulating the dawning of hope coming in the form of Christ? Is Rosa attempting to convey the meaning of the event rather than focusing on the shallow and somewhat inaccurate depiction of the physical which traditionalism values? Or is he simply abandoning religion altogether? Although the artist was clearly intentional in this act, it appears that the intention has been lost over the passage of time. Now we learn more about the observer from what they draw from the painting than what the artist was initially attempting to convey themselves.

This is both fascinating and distressing. On one hand it gives us a tool through which we can explore people, to bring to light our most hidden thoughts and feelings and to be able to express them to one another and even ourselves. Yet it means art is increasingly vulnerable to misinterpretation once the artist had died. So we have the objective meaning of an artist being expressed through their art and eroded by time into subjectivity. One can see this as positive or negative – what is most interesting is the artist who embraces this and, instead of attempting to instruct their audience directly, they seek to encourage the onlooker to raise questions and come to their own conclusions. The focus of this art is not so much on the answer we uncover, but on helping us to develop a habit of self-awareness and to cultivate the kind of curiosity and wonder which sparks creativity. Here the purpose of the art is not to say: ‘this is the correct answer’ but to insist: ‘one must ask the question’.

It seems that we now see that there is meaning to art, both conveyed by the artist and interpreted by the viewer. We see the benefits of self-exploration and thoughtfulness, but does this then mean that it is only the journey and not the destination that matters? Although the search for meaning is important is the importance of the meaning itself discounted? Hence the question remains – Does meaning matter?

Look out for our upcoming articles on this subject featuring interviews with artists, social experiments and a look at how artistic meaning shapes our culture.

In an astounding move forward this week, the University of Minnesota announced its development of a model helicopter controlled by brainwaves. Simply through imagining clenching the left or right fist the user could pilot the device successfully through a series of obstacles with relatives ease. This heralds a fantastic opportunity for people with disabilities of all kinds, from arthritis sufferers to amputees to paralytics. Furthermore extensive work is being done on the enhancement of implants which have already been shown to greatly improve cognitive ability and show a huge potential in the treatment of brain damage, particularly in stroke victims. Yet is this technological revolution restricted to the health industry or could we all one day have our own mind-controlled robots and mechanical prosthetics.

Indeed it seems even now that our smartphones are often more an extension of our own bodies than a simple piece of hardware. In a step further Google readies its revolutionary new product ‘Google Glass’ for the global market. This tiny, convenient headset enables the user to browse the Internet make calls and take video using only voice commands whilst the minuscule, transparent screen remains unnoticeable while not in use. Not only this but researchers at Tokyo university have begun work on a new device allowing a computer screen to be projected on almost any surface, making it possible to turn the palm of your hand into your phone or tablet in an instant! As the boundaries between the technological and the organic are slowly blurred it seems that the science fiction of the past is becoming the reality of the future. With the realisation of chips which allow increased memory capacity and faster thought-processes or muscle augmentations which increase power and protect against damage, how many of us could honestly say that we wouldn’t consider making use of such potentially beneficial technology? Furthermore as thought-controlled devices are continuously refined it becomes more and more likely that technology originally created to enable greater independence for disabled people will be utilised for the convenience of society as a whole.

We have not even begun to discuss the implications of AI or automated robotics, which undoubtedly advances the field even further, yet even in neglecting these schools it seems apparent that the tide of progress is pushing us ever closer to a deeper reliance on our technology than we have ever seen before. With this comes a menagerie of benefits and dangers and whether or not the shift on the whole is a positive one is certainly up for debate. What is sure is that progress moves ever forward and every development impacts our world, our society, our very lives in sometimes the most intimate of ways.

Art and science have represented the uncomfortable compromise between subjectivity and objectivity in our society since time immemorial, but is this simply a misunderstanding of what art and science are? Surely if we want to practice artistic science we need a firmer grasp on the truth behind these matters, moreover we must know whether there is any truth behind them at all! So we must ask ourselves: “Does meaning matter?”

Science says yes. By definition science is the search for objective truth, so everything scientifically measurable can be assigned objective meaning; from fundamental physical principles to intrinsic properties of particles – objectivity is unavoidable in science. It is of utmost importance that the scientist understands the meaning behind their results and the implications for their research. One cannot afford to say meaning is subjective when trying to assess whether a bridge will stand or in diagnosing a disease and so, clearly, only the most ardent relativist would insist that science is subjective. Yet what about art?

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” as the old saying goes, but is it really true? Of course different people see beauty in varying ways – but are all views accurate? Or is there objective beauty beneath it all? I suggest both. Beauty is quantified by the message it conveys. For example, throughout most cultures there have been times where high body-fat is considered attractive due to the relative prosperity it implied. However in current western society, where adequate food supply is generally not a problem, obesity instead implies health issues and lack of fitness. Both views can be understood to be accurate in given situations and furthermore their motivations are objectively good – to prosper and to be healthy are intrinsically positive things. It would appear that the value of the ‘symptom’ is found in what it represents and not in the ‘symptom’ itself. So here we have subjective interpretation of what objective truth is being represented.

It seems that when it comes to assessing meaning for purpose, this meaning does matter and is objective. Nevertheless if we were to stop here we would be doing a major discredit to the subject. The big question is: “What about art for its own sake?” At first it would seem that art would of course be subjective, yet let us consider what art is. According to Aristotle “The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.” The purpose of art is to express real meaning, albeit inexpressible by other means – so perhaps it is possible to misunderstand art. Is there actually underlying truth which holds regardless of the beholder’s view? Does this mean art could be just as objective as science?

Over the coming weeks we will be investigating this further, through interviews with artists, social experiments and a deeper look at the importance of meaning. Please feel free to comment below and let us know what you think – Does meaning really matter?

Despite playing the villains in many a Hollywood movie, asteroids are in fact our friends when it comes to space travel. On a planet of dwindling resources and increasing pollution it is looking more and more likely that we will have to colonise space in the not-too-distant future and yet we are still unable to send manned missions beyond our own moon. The main stumbling block to this feat is a lack of resources to do this on any reasonable scale. One solution is to develop faster, more efficient technology (particularly propulsion), however this only allows us to reach a little further rather than providing any kind of permanent solution. So far the human race has regarded Earth as our only resource in the universe and so we mine it for all it has in order to make the most of what we’ve got. Yet beyond our sky, space is filled with energy – electrical storms flash about atmospheres, asteroids and comets hurtle through our solar system and cosmic rays ignite planets. There is a lot out there that we can harness.

Current space-programs rely on building craft on Earth and making short trips into space. Constantly escaping and re-entering Earth’s gravity in this way requires a vast amount of fuel, not to mention the reconstruction of jettisoned engine modules and repairing of damaged components. It also places the astronauts in a significant amount of danger during both take-off and re-entry. The practical and necessary next step is to launch craft from space with extremely specialised shuttles transporting personnel between an orbiting station and the Earth’s surface. A foundation for this has been laid with the creation of the International Space Station (ISS), beginning the era of long-term manned space missions.

With this in place we can begin to use resources outside of our planet. There are approximately 1000 known asteroids with diameters of one kilometre or greater that are easily reachable from the earth with standard spacecraft. Many of these contain valuable minerals – most notably precious metals. The composition of asteroids can largely be deduced remotely using various methods, the most useful being the measurement of its size and motion relative to gravitational fields. Once a mineral-rich asteroid has been spotted a cheap surveying drone could be sent from a station to ascertain exactly what the asteroid contains and if it is found to be a lucrative prospect a robotic mining module could be dispatched to extract the minerals and return them to the station, to either be used there or transported to the Earth below. This seems like the stuff of science-fiction but is actually very easy with current technology. The extreme elliptical orbits of asteroids means they pass very close to our planet and, unlike on Earth, heavy minerals are common near the surface – making them easy to find.

Furthermore asteroids are not only rich in materials that are rare on Earth but also contain raw materials such as iron and nickel which could be used directly in components built in space. Water found on asteroids can be used to power machines and provide radiation shielding for manned craft and electricity is easily generated from the almost constant sunlight, unimpeded by atmospheric shielding. If we are to reach beyond our planet we must start harnessing local environments. Already large organisations are preparing to move into this area and once the method for mining in micro-gravity is perfected the extra-planetary gold-rush will begin.

Since time immemorial doomsayers have been predicting the end of the world. From Mayan calendars to nuclear war, global destruction has never been far from the thoughts of many. So of course it is only natural that we exercise scepticism when talk of climate change ripples across the planet. We like to regard our home as a safe, dependable place – the sun rises and sets each day, the tide comes in and out – but it is not necessarily so predictable. Our climate goes through cycles of global cooling and warming, ice ages come and go whilst glaciers slip across our continents and slowly melt into nothing. At the moment we are reaching a natural peak in global temperature, the unfortunate thing is that this also coincides with a time where we are producing far more greenhouse gases then ever before.

The scientific community is generally agreed that if these emissions continue it will raise the Earth’s temperature beyond its natural maximum and so shift the cycle dramatically. Some suggest that a runaway process has already begun and that reducing emissions can no longer prevent the widespread drought and global flooding caused by rising temperatures and melting icecaps. A possible solution to this is to remove greenhouse gases from our atmosphere using ‘carbon capture’, where carbon is effectively sponged out of the air using various methods, from replanting forests to more industrial processes. Whatever the case it is clear that our current reliance on fossil fuel is not sustainable, especially given its increasing scarcity.

Virtually all energy on our planet comes either from our sun or from geothermal processes below the Earth’s crust. Even fossil fuels, being the remains of biological organisms, originally gained their energy from these sources. Obviously the most efficient method of harnessing this energy, at least theoretically, is to harness it directly rather than collecting the scraps we can obtain from various plants and animals that have already harnessed it before us. In an ideal world we would collect solar and geological energy, or at least extract it from wind and tides driven by thermal energy. Unfortunately we are yet to do so on any reasonable scale and time is rapidly running out – our resources are dwindling whilst our power demands increase dramatically and our climate is changing faster than we can adapt. Our technology is not advanced enough to practically achieve total reliance on renewable energy and even if it were, we don’t have sufficient time to establish the necessary infrastructures.

We need a powerful, reliable energy source to carry us through the next few decades until we can improve our technology and begin to build a renewable energy network. Nuclear power offers just such a solution. Current nuclear generators utilise ‘fission’, the splitting of heavy elements into lighter atoms and collecting some of the energy that was previously being used to bind the atomic nucleus together. Furthermore the technology is now available to carry out power generation via fusion (combining very light elements into heavier ones) which yields far more energy in comparison to fission and requires relatively few rare materials. The most promising form of this utilises deuterium, which can be refined from seawater, and tritium which can be bred inside nuclear reactors. Though the technology and materials are now in place, fuel cells for these reactors are very difficult to make and no method has yet been devised to mass-produce them (mainly due to the fact that they have not yet been widely used). Hence they have very high manufacturing costs which would result in providers being forced to charge higher rates, this is the primary reason as to why fusion generators have not yet been brought into general use.

A method of mass-producing fuel cells will solve this problem and make fusion a viable option and until then fission reactors are sufficient for our purposes. However nuclear reactors are not renewable and even reactors which use such abundant materials as deuterium still produce nuclear waste – a by-product that remains hazardous to environments, wildlife and people for thousands, in some cases hundreds of thousands of years. This can be safely contained, provided sufficient care is taken, but it eliminates nuclear power as an indefinite solution as there is only finite space in which to dispose of it.

So we stand at a turning point in history, if we continue to use current energy generation methods we will soon find our world a dramatically different place as major cities are submerged and nations are parched with drought. However if we blindly switch to nuclear energy without investing in renewables we will eventually be faced with a waste crisis which could lead to severe political, environmental and public health problems. It is imperative that we phase out traditional power generation and switch to nuclear as a temporary measure with a view to becoming renewable-dependent by the end of the 21st century. In the UK this is most likely to be a combination of wind and tidal energy – although tidal power has received little attention or development as most developed countries are not as coastline-dominated as Britain. In sunnier climates solar panels will be the most effective means of power generation, especially as technology improves. Whilst governments and politicians debate the next move time is ticking on, our climate is being destroyed and our resources are running out. There is hope, in fact the future looks quite bright, but hard decisions need to be made and, one way or another, our world will change very soon.

]]>https://theartisticscience.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/the-nuclear-revolution-why-the-world-must-change/feed/4davewoodwritespower station editThink Before You Speak – Language is Beautifulhttps://theartisticscience.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/think-before-you-speak-language-is-beautiful/
https://theartisticscience.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/think-before-you-speak-language-is-beautiful/#commentsSat, 16 Feb 2013 15:40:39 +0000http://theartisticscience.wordpress.com/?p=133
The phrase ‘actions speak louder than words’ has always troubled me somewhat. Of course our actions should be in line with what we say, anything else is simply hypocrisy, but to reverse the order and regard action as of primary importance is to replace truth with efficacy. Language is intrinsic to society. Universally, every culture develops language of some description and many believe our ability to communicate in complex, seemingly unnecessary ways, is what makes humans so distinct from every other form of life on our planet.

At its heart language exists to convey information; to warn, to instruct and to request aid. However we use our words to do much more than this, instead we weave them into beautiful structures through poetry and song, we fence with them in debate and we build up relationships through conversation. It seems that language is far more versatile than necessary. Take German for example, its extremely flexible sentence structure allowing the speaker to rearrange articles in order to place emphasis where required. Word-order within a statement can be altered fairly freely without changing the information conveyed within and yet swapping two words can cause a tremendous shift in tone. In this way a discouragement quickly becomes an inspirational quote and a despairing comment can be turned into a happy declaration. This creates fantastic opportunities for creativity, where we can express our inmost thoughts and feelings, convey abstract ideas and encourage great progress.

Unfortunately, as with all things, this can also be abused. Language can be used to undermine and to control. Language can even be used to alter peoples thoughts, beliefs and desires – as we see every day through advertisements and propaganda. The rough separation of strong, ‘men’s’ and deferential, ‘women’s’ words in Japanese demonstrates this well. Some believe that this innate sexism promotes a constant subliminal message that women are inferior to men – although it is worth pointing out that this is an integral part of the Japanese language and is not intentionally created, nor would it be possible to remove it over any reasonable time period.

Understanding the importance of words is paramount to progress. Of course disciplines such as literature and sociology are more than familiar with this fact, but many parts of the scientific community are seemingly oblivious to it. Some scientists even go so far as to present their work in an opaque fashion in order to appear more intellectual. This thoughtlessness to others drives the wedge between various cultures even deeper. Instead we should aim to explain our work in an accessible manner, spending careful thought on the terminology we use and the structure of our communication. Anybody who has tried to understand large chunks of foreign texts using online translation sites knows the frustration of the underestimation of words. Take, for example, the concept of beauty in English – we have many words that convey beauty: ‘pretty’, ‘appealing’, ‘gorgeous’ etc. and yet each different word carries with it numerous connotations. You would rarely call a masterpiece ‘gorgeous’ and yet telling your partner they’re simply ‘appealing’ may land you in hot water for lack of sentiment. On my last visit to Romania a friend of mine tried to thank a shopkeeper for some ice-cream but was unfortunately ignorant of the fact that the expression he was using so fervently was literally telling her that she was beautiful. Though at first flattered, she soon became slightly disturbed by his enthusiasm and so we made a quick exit before her partner returned. It is clear that our communication is not only about the message we deliver but is just as dependent on the words we use, the connotations they carry and the tone in which it is said.

Furthermore our language is not only limited to words in the conventional sense, but to other notations also. Mathematical equations can encapsulate wonderful truths that teach us otherwise inexpressible things about our universe, chemical formulae succinctly describe structures of the building blocks of life and logical operators summarise complex arguments in a few lines. In many ways these are simply other languages alongside the more familiar English, French, Mandarin etc., although of course their purpose is much more defined and thus they are less flexible. If we are to have any hope of progress we must throw off the urge to dismiss language as replaceable. Translation is reliable to an extent, but deeper meaning is inevitably lost without further study and so we must seek to understand people on their own terms.

So do actions speak louder than words? Perhaps they do. Perhaps they are more noticeable, but are they more sensible? Action grabs attention and is memorable, but it conveys little information. A man who grabs somebody on the street could easily be a criminal or an undercover policeman depending on the circumstances – the action alone leaves us in the dark. This is my conviction and my plea to society as a whole, let us again realise the importance of communication. Twitter, Facebook, even blogs have become a source for people to satisfy their own urge to be heard rather than a constructive means of communication. In the meaningless chatter of talk-shows, advertisements and social media that drowns our culture, we have drifted away from the importance of communication and as such have devalued our language. Words are powerful things and so we should pay careful attention, seeking to understand others and to communicate constructively.

]]>https://theartisticscience.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/think-before-you-speak-language-is-beautiful/feed/1davewoodwriteslanguage BW edit 2 - no bckgrndThe Life Vault – Cracking the Safehttps://theartisticscience.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/the-life-vault-cracking-the-safe/
https://theartisticscience.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/the-life-vault-cracking-the-safe/#respondTue, 05 Feb 2013 17:38:34 +0000http://theartisticscience.wordpress.com/?p=82Last week saw an interesting turn of events as over 24 hours scientists finally reached the ancient lake Whillans buried under 800 metres of ice in Antarctica whilst NASA released the latest photograph of one of Saturn’s moons, Titan. What do these two radically different places have in common? They each hold secrets which could unravel a whole new understanding of life as we know it.

Though now a frozen desert with harsh winds and temperatures dropping to nearly -90°C, Antarctica was not always such a hostile environment. Fossils of several animals and plants which thrived in mild conditions have been discovered on the continent suggesting that this largely barren land once flourished with life. Over the past few decades, airborne and satellite surveys have revealed a whole new world beneath the ice with the discovery of nearly 150 sub-glacial lakes – and counting. These lakes are warmed by geothermal energy from below and kept insulated by thick ice sheets flowing across the surface whilst the huge pressure caused by the tonnes of ice above keeps the water from freezing even at -3°C. It is here in these extreme environments, some cut off from the world for millennia, that we could find life in forms never seen before.

Though the depths of Antarctica may seem a long way from space, NASA has taken a special interest in Antarctic drilling projects in order to hunt for ‘extremophiles’ – life forms that thrive in seemingly impossible circumstances. Previously it was thought that life could only be found in the ‘goldilocks zone’ – where temperature, pressure, pH level and many other variables met very specific criteria. However in recent years micro-organisms have been discovered in the most unlikely environments, from the depths of our oceans to the radioactive coolant in nuclear reactors, forcing scientists to rethink how we view life on our planet and indeed in our universe.

Icy plumes erupt from the surface of Enceladus.Courtesy NASA

Now a whole new wave of research and scientific thought is about to break as moons like Saturn’s Enceladus and Titan or even the ice caps of Mars appear more and more hospitable to these wonderful creatures. Enceladus is in many ways similar to Antarctica – its barren, frozen surface hiding an extreme aquatic environment below. However there are differences, for example the atmosphere of Enceladus is virtually non-existent and, fortunately, the possibly life-sustaining waters aren’t locked away quite as tightly as we might at first think. Huge pressures below the surface sometimes cause the ice above to crack and water to rush upwards from below resulting in giant ‘ice volcanoes’ jetting out into space. Any creatures which do inhabit Enceladus would almost certainly live below the surface and these jets allow us to analyse the composition of the oceans below and provide a window into an otherwise unreachable habitat.

Titan is a thorough contrast to its neighbour in almost every way. Here the atmosphere is so thick and the gravity so light that, theoretically, a human could easily fly about using only a set of artificial wings. Carbon and other organic materials are fairly abundant on the moon’s surface and rivers and lakes of liquid ethane and methane are common – some scientists theorise that where life on earth is chiefly orientated around the presence of liquid water, here we might see a very similar ecosystem based on methane.

So why are we wasting time drilling holes in our own ice caps? Surely we should be out there seeking out these extremophiles in our solar system? Well last month NASA’s rover, Curiosity, finally began to do just that as it carried out a test drill on the surface of Mars. However we can never hope to understand what we see out there if we don’t investigate our own planet. NASA’s realisation of this is an extremely encouraging example of how those from different areas of research can come together to learn from one another and to further the advance of their individual studies. Thanks to this collaboration we can see the potential of our solar system much more clearly whilst also learning about our own planet. Nevertheless there are still daunting new frontiers to cross; we know little of Titan’s rocky surface as its atmosphere prevents much study from the earth, Enceladus has oceans still to be explored and Antarctica’s largest and perhaps most promising lake, lake Vostok, is yet to be sampled.

The increased cooperation between these seemingly divergent subjects is yielding exciting results so far and promises of many more to come.The scientific community and indeed humanity as a whole should be waiting with bated breath as over the next few decades we really start to address the mystery of life in our universe.

After the positive comments and great reaction to the blog launch I realise all the more just how important the concept of artistic science really is. I find myself debating what to write next. I long to share with you some of the amazing things I’ve seen studying physics, or even what we’re doing in the lab today but equally I want us to explore something new together. Before we go any further it strikes me that we need to understand why humanity seems so fixed on categorisation and tribalism, lest we fall into the same trap.

As a keen, though somewhat picky, film and television lover I do happen across certain trends from time to time. Recently I have been made aware of the amount of fear with which which popular television (generally) seems to regard science. Take for example channel 4’s new series: Utopia, where mysterious geneticists are covertly manipulating the world’s governments to bring about what appears to be some kind of viral Armageddon. The protagonists are forced on the run, unknown as to why they are being hunted or who is hunting them – even as the truth is revealed they seem ignorant of what they’re being told. In contrast, the villains of the series seem fully aware of what is going on but say little of it themselves. They are not intimidating or threatening in their appearance, but instead derive all their power from their position of knowing what their audience do not and thus generating an underlying sense of trepidation.

So it is in the real world. We naturally fear the unknown. As human beings we are constantly seeking to prove our worth. We seek to show ourselves as worthy of respect or money, to be desirable and to be given power. However the unknown is a constant threat to us. Not only can the unknown potentially hurt us physically, but it can show us to be weak and vulnerable. The unknown is our enemy. In order to protect ourselves against this our automatic defence mechanism is to brand anything unknown as unnecessary – to mock it and make it seem small in order to make ourselves look bigger. We see this in our schools and universities as different disciplines belittle one another. We see it in the workplace where certain occupations are sidelined by those who know nothing about it. We even see it on a personal level as anybody who knows more than most on a subject is branded a ‘geek’.

As, at least until recently, the vast majority of those in the media sector had a background in the ‘arts’ as opposed to the ‘sciences’ it is not surprising that this tribal divide has been carried through from our education system into our media – forming a vicious circle which reinforces the idea that science and art are not compatible. Despite this, in recent years the media have come a long way in demystifying science. The BBC have showed to be devoted to making quality, informative and accessible documentaries with such popular TV series as Sir. David Attenborough’s ‘Africa‘ & Prof. Brian Cox’s ‘Wonders of the Solar System‘ – yet perhaps the most effective attempt of late came from the US in the form of the american comedy ‘The Big Bang Theory‘. Again it seems that humour and the mocking of the unknown is the only safe way in which to interact with it.

I remember when I went to University to study physics I lived with a history of art student. She was fantastically talented and passionate about her subject in a way that was truly infectious. Often I would get back late from work when everybody had either gone out or gone to bed for the night to find her sat up writing or painting. Every time I’d find myself lost in what I saw; the paintings and posters scattered across the walls, piles of books and compendiums on various artists and visionaries, a whole other world right across the hall. It was then that I started to ask the questions. Further and further down the rabbit hole I tumbled as I marvelled at what was around me, whilst all the while she sat patiently – answering and gently guiding. I stumbled around the subject like a child learning to walk and yet with every faltering step I found a whole new realm of ideas and opportunities. Whether it was folly or courage I can’t say, but instead of dreading what I didn’t know I felt myself embraced by it. Instead of seeing a threat I saw an opportunity and oh how beautiful it was!

In order to truly practice The Artistic Science we must overcome this fear of the unknown, we must be prepared to admit that we don’t know and that’s ok because that’s why we’re here! As we start our journey we should expect to come across new concepts, new world-views – even our language differs between disciplines – but let’s not be deterred. Let’s dive in, let’s embrace the alien, have the courage to take on the unknown and finally, overcome the fear.

As a physicist I have two options in life: to pursue fact – seeing the universe in black and white where everything comes with a yes or no answer; or to pursue truth – acknowledging the realms indescribable by science and to view our cosmos in a haze of colour. Both methods have positives and negatives; they may even initially seem similar but are fundamentally different.

The former allows us to fully grasp our area of research, to essentially box up each segment of reality into an understandable and potentially controllable sub-section. However the ‘black & white’ scientist will never truly appreciate what he is viewing. He will obtain results which will vastly further the cause of science and can be used to benefit humanity, but he will never see the beauty of it – as beauty is meaningless to him. Furthermore, though he avoids the distraction of the arts, he will never be able to put the puzzle of our world together because he’s missing half of the pieces.

The latter enables more creativity; to explore more controversial and original ideas. Yet this creativity also disrupts our clarity, causing confusion and sometimes a lack of direction. Freed from the single dimension of the physical we can explore the realms of the emotional, the relational, the concepts of beauty and philosophy – our universe has exponentially increased and with it, our potential. This allows us to truly embrace the meaning of science and moreover how it fits into life as a whole. Through such artistic science, instead of disregarding the arts we see where these dimensions overlap and how they can complement one another. Understanding the nature of humanity and the world we live in yields profound insight into how we do science today and moreover how we live our lives.

I would like to find out what it really means to explore our world, to approach learning, describing and creating in their purest forms – outside of the lines we’ve drawn around them. Questions race through my mind: How do we live skilfully? How do we take every opportunity, every experience, every thought captive and turn them to living life to its fullest? No longer should we remain bound by the chains that keep us in our one-dimensional thought. Like a painter using only one colour, we are lost without contrast, without the weaving of hue and shade. Science, literature, music, philosophy, all these things are beautiful but alone they are simply a single stroke of the brush, a lonely fleck of paint, on what could be a masterpiece.

No matter who or what you are the challenge is this: Will you seek to make your passion, your life, all that it can be? Or will you continue painting in a single shade?

This blog is my journey on what it is to be an artistic scientist – to live life skilfully. I don’t claim to have any great knowledge or wisdom as yet, but I hope you’ll come with me in seeking it out. Please feel free to comment your thoughts and views on this as we go along.